A broad explanation of original Marxist Communism. I wrote this in the Spring of 2014 Freshman year of college. I was 19.
Karl Marx, known as the father of communism, has presented a challenge to modern capitalism and free-market economics. Marx’s works spell out how communism is politically, economically, and ethically superior to modern-day capitalism. To understand Marx, his definitions of words like bourgeoisie and proletariat have to be analyzed to observe the altered meaning in the modern world.
Marx writes the bourgeoisie are the oppressors who control a large amount of wealth, because of overproduction or surplus, view human labor as a commodity, have major political influence, alter the world market and barbarian states with their ideals, and insert their ideals in everyday life in various ways (Marx, 1848). Marx’s bourgeoisie can be identified in many ways in the modern world; businessmen, corporate owners, the elite, the 1% in the U.S., and the wealthy individuals in the top 5% around the world who own a lot of capital and property. On the latter Marx puts proletarians. “The proletariat is that class of society which lives exclusively by its labour and not on the profit from any kind of capital; that class whose weal and woe, whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business; in a word, on the fluctuations of competition” (Marx, 2848). Modern-day proletariats can be considered laborers or low wage workers. Marx did not account for the strong middle-class capitalism has created but he might put them in the petty bourgeoisie if he had foreseen their potential growth. This petty-bourgeois, the strong middle class would be classified as democratic socialists or bourgeois socialists who, as Marx explains, do not work to solve the problems of proletariat suffering.
Marx explains socialism is separate from communism and usually falls into three categories. There are reactionary socialists, “this category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils” (Marx, 1848). This class will not work to abolish proletariat suffering because it is, in a way, restarting feudalism and repeating history. Marx even believes after a revolution these socialists will reconnect with the bourgeoisie to stampede over the proletariat because the feudalists who were overtaken by the bourgeois compose this class. The second category of socialism is borgeriouse socialism. This group wants to maintain the bourgeois state of living while removing the inherent evils of it. They want to come up with creative ideas that work like a piece of tape over a leak in the dam and keep progressing the bourgeois state of being instead of abolishing it for true proletariat justice. The last stage of socialism is democratic socialism whose wish is to, “abolish the misery of a present-day society. These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat” (Marx, 1848). Marx explains how socialism won’t work to fix the capitalistic path we are headed down but communism will.
Communism according to Marx is, “to organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all their capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society” (Marx, 1848). Marx believed communism can be implemented by removing private property and replacing it with community-owned property. Marx lists 10 major steps each country must take overtime to achieve communism and abolish capitalism. These steps include centralization of wealth, abolishing all private property including inheritance, equal distribution of the population across the country, free public education, and State-owned manufacturing.
Capitalism as Marx sees it is when the bourgeoisie control a large amount of property, 9/10ths of private property is already done away with, while the proletarians are measured in capital due to wages. “Wage labor creates capital not actual private property for the individual” (Marx, 1848). Modern day capitalism includes the bourgeoisie, middle class, and proletariat. In all fairness this middle class seems satisfied with what they get from a capitalistic society. However, this is a problematic satisfaction when seen from a political, economic, or ethical lens.
The political structure of capitalism and how politics are ran, according to Marx, is the bourgeois have more control and power over political decisions and policy making than the proletarians who are in the majority. The strong middle class gets to participate in free market economics and thus owns a lot of capital in terms of technology and material items. Marx would argue these are implemented by the bourgeoisie, they are but distractions from the truth of political and economic suppression. Modern capitalistic politics are representative, meaning locals select candidates to represent their political wishes, these candidates represent the majority and exclude a fairly large amount of people in the minority. In other capitalist nations people have similar representation and political parties in government. The problem with this version of political participation is that not everyone gets to sway important policies and political decisions to benefit the workforce if that policy is restricting financial progression or personal capital. In other words businesses have more power to use educated lawyers and congresspeople to agree with their policies and decisions than the lobbyists and average population wanting to restrict such policies. Even the government in a capitalistic society favors the bourgeoisie by bailing out large corporations when they fail so the economy doesn’t parish. This proves Marx’s theory of how much political and economic sway the modern bourgeois truly possess over the average citizen.
This inequality in representation in politics could be translated as a failure of equality and the idea of democracy modern capitalism is founded upon. Capitalism makes the rest of the world comply to its ideals. If one nation’s bourgeois discover smart technology to increase the capability and efficiency of a product, by eliminating human labor, their prices for that product decrease. Due to the idea of competition created by capitalism everyone tries to buy this cheaper product and thus less developed nations, or barbaric nations as Marx likes to call them, cannot compete. These less developed nations must now find a method to accommodate with the new prices of production by decreasing wages and increasing hours, or building the piece or machinery that accelerates the process themselves. This competition forces all nations to participate in the ideals and innovations of a bourgeois nation. This creates political ramifications and discourse as trade increases tensions and adds financial assets to international relations. Countries learn using embargoes and restricting trade can help or hurt other nations. The solution is found in communism.
In communism people will get equal participation in politics. Most people participate in politics because something is going against their ideals or lifestyle. In a communistic community property is equally distributed and so is wealth. This eliminates two major sources of inequality and protests. Marx says communism sees no race or social perceptions because that is class antagonism and communism fights class antagonism for proletarians. In a communistic society there is no bourgeoisie thus no society or culture of certain antagonistic perceptions towards a certain race, gender, disability, or creed thus removing inequality and need for political protests. That is quite idealistic of course and there will be political reforms in a Communistic State. However, because the State has centralized wealth and has eliminated bourgeoisie the political reforms will be more equal in representation and account for majority of the population. Communism must spread globally so all nations can participate in political prosperity.
Marx believes the progression to communism will occur gradually, “by employing workers in national workshops and factories and on national estates, and by educating all children at the expense of the state.” In modern capitalism children have access to free public education. Yet, the rest of the world promoting capitalistic democracy doesn’t always follow this principle. Child labor and access to decent education is still a mountain for other nations to overcome. Marx would give all children access to equal education to whatever level they please including college if they are capable of fulfilling their chosen career path. As mentioned before, as all nations participate in a capitalistic society they must do the same for a communistic one. For communism to be successful all nations must adapt to it by decreasing usage of human workers as nothing more than a commodity. If one nation is still exploiting workers their products will be cheaper and other nations would not want to participate in communism which would simply prolong the inevitable according to Marx. Economic consequences like these are what drive skeptics and leaders away from communism.
A capitalistic economy creates multiple classes in terms of wealth. As these classes progress their economic wants also progress. In a capitalistic economy, people are measured in utility and wealth (Petri). This wealth is proven in the society by what one owns materialistically. The capitalistic nation with modern bourgeois creates a sense of insecurity for the proletariat since they earn wages just enough to live another day. When a society is built on materialism and ownership seems to be a major goal in life, having the bare minimum creates distress in the population. Marx underestimated the modern middle class’s perspective of the free market. The modern middle class in a developed capitalist economy such as the U.S. or London earns enough wealth to fulfill the societal and cultural expectations of a well earned and lived life. The middle class has enough property to call home, they earn enough to meet the material standards set by the culture, and seem to have enough to fulfill the basic needs and wants of modern life. On a global scale this is not always the case.
Middle classes in different nations have different expectations to meet. Some want just as many material possessions as other nations, while others have to make do with earning enough for the basic necessities in life. Even in developed countries with a strong middle class there is a clear poor or low earning proletariat class. Modern capitalism hasn’t been able to answer for the major gap between wealth of the average middle class and the rich borgeriouse of any nation, developed or developing. Marx might even argue the standards and cultural expectations of a decent middle class life are set by the bourgeoisie who control the sources of influence, such as media, TV, political ideals, religious organizations, and cultural teachings. Thus implanting the seed of what the middle class should be like in the first place. This would make the entire foundation of many nations, the middle class, a mere puppet given a decent life and blindfolded to work for the borgeriouse.
A communistic economy shares wealth and property via centralization with the entire population. Marx’s version of communism allows individuals access to education and ability to progress in a field of work they desire via State provided education. This way the necessity for all to work, a major aspect of communism, remains intact and the economy progresses in terms of production and consumption in fairly the same manner as present day. In a communistic society the motivation for work is communal inspiration and doing what one desires instinctively and creatively. Thus, promoting the development and progression of human innovation, a major contributor to modern economy, with minimum alterations. In this economy everyone will get equal luxuries and commodities so there won’t be a need for competition to get ahead of the rest of the population. Therefore, even if everyone is paid equally they are living a chosen lifestyle with the same benefits as their neighbor and thus wouldn’t need to earn more. People will work in a field they enjoy and take as they need in turn for their work. The workplace will be more of a field to accelerate the communal interests by doing something one is good at rather than an action taken simply to earn wages. As Marx said in The German Ideology:
“In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic” (Zalesko).
The economy is the money, resource, consumption, and wealth sphere. Communism is where wealth is equally distributed, consumption exists equally, resources are used to benefit everyone, and the economy still prospers thus removing the need for a capitalistic free market economic structure. This structure will still benefit everyone and is fairly ethical.
Marx explains there are three major ways capitalism is unethical for the proletariat. Since capitalism has two groups, the property owner and property less, the laborer feels alienated (Marx, 1844). The laborer spends time producing a certain product for the borgeriouse or owner. Yet, the laborer does not own the finished product and is contributing to the market outside of his work knowledge making the laborer feel estranged and alienated from both the outside world and the fruit of his or her labours (Marx, 1844). Marx’s second belief is the laborer works for someone else and usually for money. To work for survival, to earn money, is not something a person is doing of free will out of creativity, talent, or interest. This leads to a fairly bleak life. Marx gives a rather philosophical argument when he says the purpose of humanity is to create things from organic matter and rejoice in fulfilling their destiny as capable doers (Marx, 1844). A capitalistic society based on wages destroys that human nature by replacing creativity with survival and necessity as motivators for work. Lastly, a worker feels disconnected from their employer as that bourgeois person owns the fruit of the worker’s labor and seems like an alien force working in his or her own self interest, destroying the worker’s humanity in their wake.
Modern capitalism might not be at the same severe level of worker displeasement as Marx had predicted but there is a aura of distrust and almost fear of superiors in modern workplaces. People are aware CEOs in the companies they work for are earning a lot more and control them entirely when it comes to workplace contributions. Workers whether middle class or proletariat are seen as easily replaceable cogs in a machine when it comes to capitalistic industries. In many nations across the globe workers are being meticulously exploited with infuriatingly low wages, horrible work conditions, no job security, and even child labor is being practiced to keep competing with developed nations’ economies. Poor countries can’t afford to install high tech machinery and adhere to policies about fair work treatment. Many nations illegally, and in some cases legally, misuse human laborers by seeing them through capitalistic glasses as mere commodities. George Orwell writes:
“At the back of one of the houses a young woman was kneeling on the stones, poking a stick up the leaden waste-pipe which ran from the sink inside and which I suppose was blocked. I had time to see everything about her, her sacking apron, her clumsy clogs, her arms reddened by the cold. She looked up as the train passed, and I was almost near enough to catch her eye. She had a round pale face, the usual exhausted face of the slum girl who is twenty-five and looks forty, thanks to miscarriages and drudgery; and it wore, for the second in which I saw it, the most desolate, hopeless expression I have ever seen. It struck me then that we are mistaken when we say ‘It isn’t the same for them as it would be for us,’ and that people bred in the slums can imagine nothing but the slums. For what I saw in her face was not the ignorant suffering of an animal. She knew well enough what was happening to her; understood as well as I did how dreadful a destiny it was to be kneeling there in the bitter cold, on the slimy stones of a slum backyard, poking a stick up a foul drainpipe” (White, 2008)
Many writers like Orwell disclose the state of being humans are thrown into due to capitalist ideals. People who are well aware of what they are forced to become but feel helpless when it comes to reforming that necessity of poverty capitalism creates.
Marx said capitalism forces its ideals down everyone’s throats. The family relation becomes one of money and shared property, local industry is thrown into ruthless competitiveness, and even nations are butting heads for a voice in a capitalistic economy. When one nation has the means to exploit another of its resources the “barbaric nation,” as Marx would say, is rendered penniless instilling poverty and suffering for its people, who are the proletariat selling themselves for a day’s meal. Capitalism establishes a gateway for poverty, poverty causes civil discourse and may even lead to civil war, poverty causes war among other nations, and the richest win the war, with bourgeois technology, allowing them to write the history from their perspective. A simple freedom of free market creates an ideal that is so destructive it hurts people on an individual, state, and global level.
Communism from an ethical perspective is quite different from capitalism as Richard White points out:
“There are many writers who could be described as “ethical socialists,” including Robert Owen, Proudhon, Fourier, Bernstein, R.H. Tawney, and the novelist George Orwell… In opposition to the adherents of vulgar Marxism, one thing they all have in common is their rejection of the historical inevitability of socialism. For Orwell and all the others, socialism is morally necessary since it is the most obvious manifestation of freedom, justice, and equality. However, socialism is not historically necessary, as Orwell puts it, the triumph of Hitler proved that nothing is historically inevitable, and this absence of necessity means that the success or failure of socialism must be more closely tied to the moral character and policies of those who support it” (White, 2008).
Marx believes, each nation is at a different level of development and has a different level of conflicts to resolve. Thus, each nation must go through their own economic cycles to reach communism. After doing so the ultimate Utopian goal is a global establishment of Marxist Communism. Communism abolishes the alienation of the work force and now the middle class, it allows people to fulfill their destiny as they are meant to, and it eliminates ethical dilemmas. Marx clearly does not approve of the idea of equality which should be the ethical ultimatum in any society. Richard White writes, “… it is possible to return to the tradition of ethical socialism that Marx himself rejected when he condemned his socialist rivals. It can be asked whether socialism is ethically necessary; and if it can be justified in terms of basic values, such as justice, freedom, or equality, that most people would be likely to affirm.” Richard remarks, “In his classic work, In Defence of Politics, Bernard Crick comments: ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity are the specifically socialist cluster of values, if one treats cooperation and community’ as closely related to ‘fraternity.’… In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that the bourgeois liberal version of freedom is secondary and derived” (White, 2008).
Marx doesn’t approve of equality and freedom. Marx believes these are terms created by the bourgeoisie for themselves. In a communistic society there would be no need for equality and freedom since everyone is already at that point economically. Marx also states he believes communism is achieved overtime not all at once. This is where Marx contradicts himself because at the level of development we are at, we must acknowledge and move towards equality to achieve communism. In a way the idea of equality is the ethical foundation that could motivate someone to take radical action towards communism as Marx desires. While capitalism has many ethical flaws, communism seems like the ideal place of equality and fair human treatment Utopian authors crush over. However, if we are ever to get to that point we would have to sacrifice a lot ethically with radical actions and the end goal seems too good to be true.
For communism to work ethically there must not be a State controlling its people like many modern day adaptations of socialist nations are attempting. It seems there is a timeline and road map of political reforms each nation must go through to achieve this ultimate form of ethical supremacy. After all the modern world has seen this form seems too distant and many feel too naive to think risking anything with radical actions could result in something so positive. Hopping around on the political road map to communism as many nations have attempted seems catastrophic but following the map and slowly progressing towards communism might be too late. Also, forcing democracy or a preferred political ideology on another nation produces even worse consequences. Modern capitalism has altered natural resources, the environment, is having a hard time accommodating the population growth, political corruption, religious conflicts, and much more. There are many roadblocks that we might never overcome to see the day this idealistic communism of Marx successfully implemented but it seems to be the most ethical political structure yet to be conceptualized.
After all I have discovered about Marx and his radical ideas I find him to be convincing in his communistic preaching. I don’t believe we can reach the Utopian society of equal treatment or the desired degree of ethical, political, and economic harmony globally anytime soon. Yet, if we slowly work towards this ideal society with the help of the government and majority population we would be in a better ethical and political state of being than we are in a capitalistic community. Society must overcome the negative perceptions and connotations of communism and socialism as it has been instituted thus far and understand the overall motive. I do not approve of all Marx’s methods to achieve communism because I believe if it was to work, as intended by Marx, war would be inevitable to instate it and I disagree with that. Living in a nation where everyone is so equal we don’t even need to have a concept of equality sounds like the perfect human condition, but getting there after all that has happened in human history and modern civilization seems practically impossible. In the modern world, trying to overthrow capitalism might require a bit more than a simple “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”
2016 Update:
Currently, communism and capitalism differ in terms of how both ideas where originally conceptualized. Implementing ideas changes them and what they represent (due to consequence of the action of implementing an idea). Especially in politics, where ideas take a life of their own when implemented on such a grand institutional scale.
Everything considered, it is disgusting to uphold any one ideology over another when it causes people pain. I do not want to responsible for causing pain via any action I take especially if it was simply based on ideology, yet, I can not sit back and keep watching suffering being prolonged and endured after all I have learned…
I do not know yet which ideology or if any ideology has the capacity to truly help people. The gap between reality and ideology gets wider often. The best I hope to do is affect positive and well intentioned change by helping people directly and hope to decrease pain caused by higher powers and collective forces, even if it is just a small action. I can hope to promote and act on positive actions no matter how small while acknowledging the pain felt collectively as humanity. Nothing will ever be enough, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying to understand and then act, positively, with love or simply kindness.
Works Consulted
Lukes, Steven. “Marxism And Morals Today.” New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.) 24.1 (2015): 54-61. Business Source Complete. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Marx, Karl. “Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 18441.” By Andy Blunden. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 2009. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Marx, Karl, et al. The Communist Manifesto. n.p.: New Haven : Yale University Press, 2012., 2012. Idaho State University Catalog. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Petri, F. “The Economics Of Karl Marx: Analysis And Applications.” European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought 17.1 (2010): 141-144. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Karl Marx (1818–1883).” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
White, Richard. “George Orwell: Socialism and Utopia.” Utopian Studies 19.1 (2008): 73-95. JSTOR. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Zalesko, Marain. “Capitalism Vs. Socialism – An Attempt To Analyse The Competitiveness Of Economic Systems.” Ekonomia I Prawo 14.1 (2015): 61. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
I uphold the ideology of reality. Whatever ends up harming people is wrong and all we can really do is be there, try to understand, and live with kindness.
Overlooked News 